M/S Veeda Clinical Research Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Ahmedabad

Appeal No.ST/12239,12240/2014 [Arising out of OIA No.AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-59-14-15, dt.29.05.2014, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad]

M/s Veeda Clinical Research Pvt.Ltd Appellant

Vs

Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, Chartered Accountant For Respondent: Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:21.07.2015

Order No.A/ 11045-11046/2015 dt.21.07.2015

Per: H.K. Thakur

These appeals are filed by the Appellant against OIA No.AHM-SVTAX-000-APP-59-14-15, dt.29.05.2014, by holding that Appellant is not entitled to CENVAT Credit on Outdoor Catering services provided by M/s Respite Hotels Pvt.Ltd, Ahmedabad.

2. Shri Vipul Khandhar, learned Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that his clients are engaged in Technical Testing & Analysis, Scientific & Technical Consultancy services, for which they are registered with Service Tax Department. It was his case that the Appellant is undertaking certain clinical research on human beings. The operations are done in a hospital maintained by the Appellant and such persons identified for clinical research are called subjects. That during the course of research, these persons are supplied free food, which is provided by M/s Respite Hotels Pvt.Ltd Ahmedabad and Service Tax is paid and entire expenses are incurred by the Appellant. He furnished copies of certain invoices raised by the service provider over the appellant. On a specific query from the Bench whether the documents furnished before the Bench, were produced before the lower authorities, learned Chartered Accountant submitted that these documents were not produced before the lower authorities.

3. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Issue involved is regarding admissibility of CENVAT Credit on outdoor catering services availed by the Appellant. It is the claim of the Appellant that no expenses paid to the service provider is borne by the staff of the Appellant. For this purpose, Appellant filed certain documents for the first time before the Bench. Once certain documents are produced for the first time before the Bench, the case cannot be decided directly on the basis of these documents. The same are required to be examined by the Adjudicating authority to see whether the services of outdoor catering are received by the Appellant and entire cost absorbed by him. Learned Chartered Accountant also relied upon certain case laws to support his view, which were not produced before the Adjudicating authority.

4. In the interest of justice, order passed by the First Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority for de-novo consideration. Appellant should produce all the documents in his favour before the Adjudicating authority alongwith the case laws relied upon. Needless to say that the Appellant should be given an opportunity to explain their case before a final view is taken by the Adjudicating authority. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating authority.

(Dictated and pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical)

cbb

3